Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: paul_fromatlanta
Since when did one have to believe that that the right of the individual to live his life as he chooses stops at the bedroom door in order to be a conservative?

That's a gay-propaganda chestnut whose hollowness is revealed by reflecting for moment on whether I'd get a knock on my door if I were, in the sanctum sanctorum of my bedroom:

1. Buggering little boys,
2. Producing perfect copies of $20 bills,
3. Having a perfectly civil conversation about killing the President of the United States,
4. Disciplining my wife with my fists,
5. Converting my CAR-15 carbine to a suppressed ("silenced") and fully automatic weapon (to be stored not used, of course),
6. Storing 500 pounds of Composition B, RDX, Semtex, dexedrine, morphine, rohypnol, heroin, and other fun chemical compounds, or
7. Xeroxing -- for my own use, of course -- copies of the Defense Intelligence Agency's "NOFORN News", with all the latest inside scuttlebutt classified SECRET - LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOFORN.

Now, lest you conclude that I'm in favor of legislating on "just anything", thus invading the spirit of the Ninth Amendment (which can in fact be invaded at liberty by the Congress and the local municipal council whenever they make new laws for public purposes; the force of the Ninth is that there is a presumption in favor of liberty to make or do any thing whenever the law is silent), the point is that deviant sexuality

a) is deviant because there's something wrong with the individual -- he is not normal -- and so a concern arises immediately, whether (or not, it may not be the case) that person is also sociopathic; and

b) has consequences beyond the bedroom in the form of

i) transmissible diseases,

ii) transmissible beliefs and attitudes that are harmful to the partner (we don't need a condom, I don't have a disease, we're young and bulletproof and can't get sick, you're a confused teenager but my gaydar says you're gay, go forth and love all mankind as I loved you, etc. etc.), and

iii) the demoralization (literally) or jading of the public on a subject that touches on family formation, the education of the young, public policy on AIDS, and the ability of a society to defend itself against pathological alien memes (Fabian socialism and its ghastly sibling, liberalism).

And then there's the whole issue of liberal judicial activism and the processual argument that gays are trying to use courtrooms and liberal judges (their lawsuits are all carefully forum-shopped: that is what Lambda Legal, of-counsel and no doubt primary instigator in the case under discussion, exists for) to find a way around the Constitution, viz., the legislative process, in order to impose their 2% will on the nonconsenting 98% whom they -- tactically playing the bleating victim all the way -- hate, despise, and eagerly look forward to trampling underfoot.

But that's a separate issue.

119 posted on 05/14/2005 4:32:38 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Touchee on one point, I did oversimplify the bedroom issue, as there are number of things that could be done in a bedroom that are properly regulated.

I was referring sexual matters between adult, sane consenting humans, but then you knew that.

We may not have as much disagreement as I thought as I am certainly not defending anything sociopathic and I share concerns about disease transmission - particularly since the vast majority of STDs, including AIDS are in the heterosexual community.

So it really comes down to this paragraph

the demoralization (literally) or jading of the public on a subject that touches on family formation, the education of the young, public policy on AIDS, and the ability of a society to defend itself against pathological alien memes

And there I do break from you. Your morals and/or sensitization are not sufficient reason to restrict someone else's liberty, in my opinion - This isn't a new debate in our land - it goes back to the Puritans and it's one of the reasons that separation of chruch and state was written into the constitution.
120 posted on 05/14/2005 4:58:41 PM PDT by paul_fromatlanta (Paul from Atlanta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson